Heliyon

Jordanian English Language Educators’ Perceived Readiness for Virtual Learning

Environment
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: HELIYON-D-22-33202R2

Article Type: Original Research Article

Section/Category: Social Sciences

Keywords: English language educator; Jordan; online teaching; readiness; virtual learning

Manuscript Classifications: 140.140.170: Pedagogy; 140.140.180: Teaching Research

Corresponding Author: Radzuwan Ab Rashid

MALAYSIA

First Author: Hanan M Madanat

Order of Authors: Hanan M Madanat

Radzuwan Ab Rashid

Umair Munir Hashmi

Misrah Mohamed

Omar Ali Al Smadi

Marwan Harb Alqaryouti

Abstract: Online engagement has become a pivotal part of educational pedagogy, especially
since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conducted in the post-pandemic era,
this study investigated Jordanian English language educators’ perceptions of their
readiness for online teaching. This quantitative study involved 101 English language
educators from Jordanian universities. Respondents’ responses were analysed
statistically using SPSS version 28. The analysis revealed that the respondents were
moderately familiar with technology and e-learning portals. They also had moderate
familiarity with managing their courses online. The investigation further revealed that
despite having many years of experience in teaching English, the respondents required
more exposure to online education. This study calls for specially designed training for
English language educators to develop their online teaching skills comprehensively for
an effective virtual learning environment.

Opposed Reviewers:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Response to Reviewers

Dear Professor Dr. Mengpei Yan,

Thank you for allowing us to revise this paper. We are grateful to have constructive comments
from the two reviewers. The comments given are really helpful in further improving the quality
of this paper. We have carefully read their comments and meticulously provided our responses.
We have also sought help from a quantitative researcher from the University of West London,
United Kingdom, who helped to refine the methodology chapter, re-run the data analysis, and
refine the reporting of the findings. This quantitative researcher ends up being one of the co-
authors of this paper.

Below is the table of amendments to summarise our responses.

Reviewer 5 Reviewer 6 Our Responses

Thank you for Thank you for acknowledging our efforts

your efforts in responding to the reviewers’ comments.
in revising your We really appreciate this.
paper. The
paper looks
good in the
current form.
You may wish
to read it a
couple of time
more to ensure
that possible
typos and any
other
unintended
errors are
addressed.

The authors have largely Thank you for your insightful comments.
addressed the concerns We have read the suggested materials and
raised by the reviewers. As a discuss them in this revised version.
new reviewer, I do not want Among the suggested references
to raise new issues but if incorporated in this new version are:
possible, I suggest that the
MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer,
authors should engage with
S. (2020). Language teachers’ coping
relevant recent studies on
strategies during the Covid-19 conversion
online language learning and
to online teaching: Correlations with stress,
teaching.
wellbeing and negative
emotions. System, 94, 102352.

Moser, K. M., Wei, T., & Brenner, D.

(2021). Remote teaching during COVID-
19: Implications from a national survey of
language educators. System, 97, 102431.

Alger, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2022). “I took

physical lessons for granted”: A case study
exploring students’ interpersonal
interactions in online synchronous lessons
during the outbreak of COVID-
19. System, 105, 102716.

Payant, C., & Zuniga, M. (2022). Learners'

flow experience during peer revision in a
virtual writing course during the global
pandemic. System, 105, 102715.

Ruiz-Alonso-Bartol, A., Querrien, D.,

Dykstra, S., Fernández-Mira, P., &
Sanchez-Gutierrez, C. (2022).
Transitioning to emergency online
teaching: The experience of Spanish
language learners in a US
university. System, 104, 102684.
 Back, M., Golembeski, K., Gutiérrez, A.,
Macko, T., Miller, S., & Pelletier, D. L.
(2021). “We were told that the content we
delivered was not as important:”
disconnect and disparities in world
language student teaching during COVID-
19. System, 103, 102679.

We hope that the revisions made are satisfactory. However, if there are any other revisions to
be done, we are happy to work on them.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Radzuwan Ab Rashid

UniSZA, Malaysia.
Revised manuscript file - highlighting revisions made Click here to view linked References

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jordanian English Language Educators’ Perceived Readiness for Virtual Learning
8 Environment
9
10
11 Hanan M Madanat,1 *Radzuwan Ab Rashid,2,3 Umair Munir Hashmi,2 Misrah Mohamed4, Omar Ali
12
13 Al Smadi5 & Marwan Harb Alqaryouti6
14
15
1
16 Department of English Language and Literature, American University of Madaba, Madaba, Jordan
17 2
18 Faculty of Languages and Communication, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia
19 3
Applied Science Research Centre, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan
20
4
21 Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching, University of West London, United
22 Kingdom
23
5
24 School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
25
6
26 Department of English Language, Literature & Translation, Zarqa University, Zarqa, Jordan
27
28 * Correspondence:
29 Radzuwan Ab Rashid
30
31 radzuwanrashid@unisza.edu.my
32
33 Abstract
34
35 Online engagement has become a pivotal part of educational pedagogy, especially since the outbreak
36
37 of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conducted in the post-pandemic era, this study investigated Jordanian
38
39 English language educators’ perceptions of their readiness for online teaching. This quantitative
40
41 study involved 101 English language educators from Jordanian universities. Respondents’ responses
42 were analysed statistically using SPSS version 28. The analysis revealed that the respondents were
43
44 moderately familiar with technology and e-learning portals. They also had moderate familiarity with
45
46 managing their courses online. The investigation further revealed that despite having many years of
47
48 experience in teaching English, the respondents required more exposure to online education. This
49
50 study calls for specially designed training for English language educators to comprehensively
51
52 develop their online teaching skills for an effective virtual learning environment.
53
54
55
Keywords: English language educator, Jordan, online teaching, readiness, virtual learning.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 1 Introduction
4
5 Educators are always expected to make a giant leap in their pedagogical approaches. This was
6
7 especially true in the critical situation caused by COVID-19, where instructors had to quickly adjust
8
9 to virtual and online teaching to make teaching and learning possible beyond the classroom walls
10
11 (Zeybeck, 2022). In this context, teachers’ readiness to engage with students through electronic
12
13 modes has become an urgent need (Macintyre, Gregersen & Mercer, 2020).
14
15
16
Similar to other countries affected by Covid-19, the face of education in Jordan was forced to change
17 to adapt to the restrictions of movement implemented in the kingdom. Students and educators across
18
19 the country found themselves sitting behind a screen when they previously went into the classroom
20
21 and met face-to-face to engage with learning. The change came abruptly with many challenges for
22
23 educators and students.
24
25
26 Educators commonly faced technology and instructional design challenges during Covid-19 (see
27
28
Johnson et al., 2020; Turnbull et al., 2021; ). Online course design, discussions, instructor actions,
29 and feedback differ from face-to-face classrooms and require modelling and support from staff and
30
31 peers (Ali, 2022; McGee et al., 2017). Maturity in offering online courses includes infrastructure and
32
33 policy as strategies to assure quality and successful implementation (Porter et al., 2016). Elewa et al.
34
35 (2022) affirm that university leaders’ are responsible for mitigating the problems with online
36
37 teaching and developing a strategy that addresses these problems and increases instructors’
38
39
satisfaction with distance learning.
40
41 Researchers agree that COVID-19 will not disappear in the foreseeable future, nor will it be the last
42
43 pandemic we face (Ravid et al., 2021). Leaderman (2021) revealed that 59% of higher education
44
45 institutions surveyed in his study plan to continue online education offerings even after the pandemic.
46
47 However, studies found that educators are not homogenous in their experience with and preparedness
48
49 for online teaching (e.g. (Bolliger & Halupa, 2021; Lederman, 2019; Scherer et al., 2021).
50
51
Development in technology-enhanced language learning requires faculty members to consider new
52 ways to prepare, organise, deliver, and assess courses and learning materials for online teaching
53
54 (Pagliari, Batts, & McFadden, 2009). Consequently, professional development is seen as a priority in
55
56 preparing educators for changed understandings of the nature of learning in which the roles of
57
58 learners and teachers and the nature of teaching have enormously transformed. Therefore, how
59
60 teaching is understood and theorised, in addition to the leap in the needed knowledge and skills for
61
62
educators to function effectively, has been recognised as one of the core pillars in the area of
63
64
65
 1
2
3 language teaching as well as language educators’ professional development (Ahmad, Tengku Sharif
4
5 & Abd Rahman, 2022; Coombe, 2017).
6
7
8 Educators' understanding of the importance of their professional development became a basis for
9
10 improving their instructional practices and led to enhancing the virtual learning environment (Allen,
11 Rowan & Singh, 2020). Part of educators’ professional development is being ready to set up virtual
12
13 classes, engaging students in virtual tasks and activities, and facilitating learning through a virtual
14
15 teaching mode (O’Dowd & Dooly, 2022).
16
17
18 There is considerable research in e-readiness (readiness for online teaching) globally. However, more
19
20 must be done in the Middle East, specifically in Jordan. Most studies on online readiness have
21
22 focused on students rather than educators (see Cutri & Whitening, 2020; Back, 2021; Alger &
23
Eyckmans, 2022; Payant & Zuniga, 2022; Ruiz-Alonso-Bartol et al., 2022; ). This research is
24
25 significant because it highlights an area that needs better explored. The findings of this research can
26
27 help highlight and mitigate issues faced by the higher education sector in the country. Jordan is
28
29 already struggling with the necessary equipment for distance learning. According to a report by The
30
31 Jordan Times (2022) on the Global Knowledge Index (GKI) 2021, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
32
33 ranked 92 regarding its information and communication technology. Educational institutions need
34 essential equipment for distance learning.
35
36
37 To help educators be well-prepared for future online teaching and possible crises, it is necessary to
38
39 investigate their online teaching readiness so that relevant recommendations and suggestions can be
40
41 proposed to develop their skills for effective online teaching. This study explores English language
42
43 educators’ perceptions of their online teaching readiness and ability to use online technological tools
44
45 and manage their courses online. To help meet this aim, three research questions were addressed:
46
47
48
1. What is the level of readiness among English teachers to use online technology?
49 2. What is the level of readiness among English teachers to manage their courses online?
50 3. What is the level of readiness among English teachers to use the e-learning portal?
51
52
53
2 Literature Review
54
55
56 Online teaching has been studied for the past two decades since technology has a firmly–established
57
58 role in education (Almahasees & Jaccomard, 2020). The recent global shift to online teaching has
59
60 signalled an in-depth examination and study of online learning, the skills and infrastructure it
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 requires, and teachers’ readiness for it. Educators’ understanding of the importance of their
4
5 professional development can become the basis for improving their instructional practices and lead to
6
7 enhancing the virtual learning environment.
8
9
10 Researchers have studied factors influencing e-readiness (e.g. Gay, 2016; Ngoc Phan & That (Dang,
11 2017; Martin, Budhrani et al., 2019; Bolliger & Hallupa, 2021) and among the most significant
12
13 factors are the educators’ attitude towards e-teaching and their technical skills (see Ngoc Phan &
14
15 That Dang, 2017; Martin, Budhrani et al., 2019). In a comprehensive meta-analysis study conducted
16
17 on educator e-readiness, Ngoc Phan and That Dang (2017) found that the more familiar the teachers
18
19 are with technology (computers, internet, and media tools), the readier they are for teaching in an
20
21 online environment.
22
23
According to Nenko (2020), educators’ readiness to distance education is related to their willingness,
24
25 preparation for basic technical communication skills, and training in new teaching methodologies for
26
27 e-learning. The study was conducted in Ukraine, and the researcher found that 74% of educators
28
29 involved did not have the theoretical knowledge and practical skills necessary to implement online
30
31 teaching.
32
33
34 In a similar vein, Elewa (2022) researched 203 nursing faculty members from different universities in
35
36
Egypt to reveal that while the faculty members had a high level of readiness for online teaching, they
37 all agreed that there was inadequate technology support and frequent technology failure. Elewa
38
39 concluded that to make the distance learning process successful; instructors needed more training and
40
41 the necessary infrastructure, such as laptops and technical support. The universities’ administration
42
43 must develop a strategy to boost the educators’ satisfaction with online teaching and address the
44
45 problems.
46
47
48
Suryanti et al. (2021) explored educators' readiness for online learning at Universitas
49 Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia. They employed LMS to monitor and assess the completeness of
50
51 the content of courses and a survey of 11 items on 209 instructors on their confidence in
52
53 technological pedagogical knowledge (T-PACK). They found that the T-PACK component is
54
55 essential to online teaching readiness. Only a little over 50 per cent of the courses had been well
56
57 developed in the university’s learning management system, and only 14 per cent had complete
58
content.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 In a study involving 208 participants, Gay (2016) found that while technical skills are among the
4
5 main factors determining e-readiness, it is not as challenging as the other factors measured, including
6
7 lifestyle and pedagogical readiness. The study examined lifestyle readiness and pedagogical
8
9
readiness as e-readiness factors. It concluded that although most online instructors found not to be e-
10 ready had technological expertise in the online environment, significant deficits were identified in
11
12 their lifestyle and pedagogical readiness items. These deficiencies highlighted a predisposition for
13
14 face-to-face interaction and immediate feedback as in a traditional setting and not being proactive in
15
16 completing tasks well ahead of deadlines (Gay, 2016).
17
18
19 Scherer et al. (2021) look at teachers’ readiness through a broader lens, considering organisational
20
21 readiness, teachers’ characteristics, and contextual factors. The study identifies teachers’ e-readiness
22 profiles (low, inconsistent, and high enthusiasm) using factors such as T-PACK self-efficacy, online
23
24 presence, and institutional support. It explains the profiles in terms of instructor characteristics and
25
26 contextual factors. Educators’ readiness for online teaching and learning goes beyond their self-
27
28 efficacy and teaching presence and depends on the institutional, cultural, and innovation context
29
30 (Scherer et al., 2021). This finding highlights a significant relationship between teachers’
31
32
competencies and institutional capacity, where e-teaching must be approached comprehensively.
33 Bolliger and Hallupa (2021) affirm this finding, concluding that instructors who felt confident about
34
35 online teaching reported they were more prepared than those who were not as secure. Because
36
37 instructors tend to be convinced when they feel ready, they must be adequately prepared for online
38
39 education.
40
41
42 However, not all research on educators’ e-readiness found educators to need help. Polat et al. (2022)
43
44
examined how prepared K-12 teachers in Turkey were to teach online. They generated 70 items
45 measuring 13 constructs, including technical competence, attitude, course design/pedagogical
46
47 competence, computer self-efficacy, and management support, and offered this to their sample of
48
49 over 2,000 teachers. The study found that teachers were ready for e-learning, with males scoring
50
51 higher in technical competence and females in pedagogical and ethical competence. Polat et al.
52
53 concluded that technology-related readiness increases with the increased use of devices.
54
55
56 Studies also show that the benefits of educators’ e-readiness are not limited to the instructor and their
57 professional competencies but also positively affect learners. Zeybek (2022) examined pre-service
58
59 teachers' readiness for online learning and engagement levels in the online environment. It was found
60
61 that their readiness was high in all dimensions, including technological readiness, self-directed
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 learning, learner control, and communication. The research results showed a positive and significant
4
5 relationship between the dimensions of enthusiasm for online learning and all the dimensions of
6
7 online learner engagement. This is believed to be because a willingness to learn creates motivation
8
9
and allows for independent learning, increasing learners’ engagement and bodes well for continuity.
10
11 Another study by Sarfraz et al. (2022) examined the moderating effect of teachers’ online teaching
12
13 readiness on medical students’ online learning perceptions and outcomes. It was found that when
14
15 teachers' readiness was high, it positively affected the student’s online learning perceptions and
16
17 learning outcomes.
18
19
20 Goutam et al. (2023) conducted a study examining online education's response, readiness and
21
22 challenges in the Bangladeshi context. Data were collected using qualitative approaches such as
23
focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with purposively selected students and teachers
24
25 involved in online education at two public and three private universities. The findings reveal an
26
27 immediate response from some universities and late or no action from others in continuing education
28
29 during the pandemic. Since teachers, students or the university administration needed to prepare for
30
31 such a situation, there was a shortage or creation of initiatives, although a certain degree of success
32
33 was noticed. Significant challenges include the lack of appropriate technology, knowledge of
34 technology use, teachers’ inadequate skills in operating the system and motivating students, poor
35
36 Internet facilities and high Internet costs, and the absence of a calm environment at students’ homes.
37
38 Workshops for teacher development, improvement of technology and facilities, subsidies in Internet
39
40 use, revisits to higher education and emergency education laws, and assistance from other
41
42 professionals and institutions are proposed for consideration.
43
44
45 Gabriella, Esther, and Kaye (2023) conducted a thematic analysis of literature published from March
46 2020–November 2020. The results showed that the Covid-19 crisis and corresponding shift to
47
48 teaching online demanded that faculty overcome their bias against online delivery and reimagine
49
50 teaching, resulting in increased innovation and unexpected positive experiences, which continue to
51
52 rise. The study concluded that teachers already engaging with student-centred approaches, relational
53
54 pedagogies, reflective practice, community networks, and digital technologies managed the transition
55
56 to online teaching and learning more effectively. Future teacher training requires effective online
57 education, designing and delivering, collaborating, making relational connections with others, and
58
59 accessing resources.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 3 Theoretical Framework
4
5
6 Learning is defined as the mastery of knowledge and the ability to apply the knowledge to future
7
8 problems and prospects. Knowledge and Practice are major learning domains investigated since the
9
10 1950s (see Bloom, 1956).
11
12
13
3.1 Knowledge
14
15 Teachers’ knowledge is best described as knowledge exclusively for teaching and is assumed to be a
16 significant part of successful education. Physical and online teaching knowledge is different in many
17
18 aspects, such as delivery methods and evaluations (Gay, 2016). In online teaching, teachers must use
19
20 technology to support students’ learning. In teaching online, teachers need content knowledge and
21
22 techniques for managing online sessions and relevant technologies that might be used in the online
23
24 sessions.
25
26
27 Teacher content knowledge refers to their mastery of the content of the subjects they teach and their
28 understanding of the underlying concepts, theories, and ways of thinking within the subject, as well
29
30 as how to teach that content effectively to students. A teacher with good content knowledge can
31
32 analyse, synthesise, and communicate information, make connections between different pieces of
33
34 information, and use this knowledge to support student learning. They will also be able to effectively
35
36 answer student questions, provide meaningful feedback, and create engaging lessons that promote
37
38 student understanding and interest in the subject.
39
40
On the other hand, teacher know-how is the skills teachers have to engage students in learning
41
42 effectively. In online teaching, teacher know-how takes on a specific meaning, encompassing the
43
44 skills necessary for teaching effectively in a virtual environment. In online teaching, a teacher with
45
46 solid know-how may use multimedia elements such as videos, images, and animations or utilise
47
48 virtual tools and resources such as virtual whiteboards, online simulations, and discussion forums to
49
50 create engaging and interactive lessons. The teacher will also have a deep understanding of how to
51 facilitate online discussions, how to manage online classroom behaviour and motivate students, how
52
53 to use technology to support student learning, and how to effectively assess student learning in an
54
55 online environment, using tools such as online quizzes, discussion forums, and virtual assignments.
56
57
58 2.2 Practice
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Teachers’ practices contribute to the development of resources, impacting what they teach and when
4
5 they teach (Northcote et al., 2015). In online teaching, teachers have to create course schemes, ensure
6
7 course alignment, select technological resources, and manage virtual interaction to match learning
8
9
outcomes, learning activities, course assignments, and assessment plans within online courses.
10
11 Teachers’ practices are proven to be better when teachers possess adequate knowledge and skills
12
13 about the topic, technology, activities and assessment methods (Martin, Budhrani & Wang, 2019).
14
15 Teachers with inadequate knowledge, poor practice, and undesirable attitude struggle more and
16
17 experience many challenges in teaching, especially in an online setting.
18
19
20 Teachers with adequate professional knowledge and the opportunity to put the knowledge into
21
22 practice are highly likely to have a high perceived readiness to engage in effective teaching. The
23
interrelation between Knowledge, Practice and Readiness is shown in the figure below.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 Figure 1: Theoretical framework to examine Jordanian English language educators’ perceived
40
41 readiness for online teaching
42
43
44 3 Methodology
45
46
47
Research Design
48
49
This quantitative study employed an online survey method. This method can be categorised into
50
51 computer-administered, electronic mail, and web surveys (Nayak & Narayan 2019). Considering the
52
53 unprecedented predicament that the world was facing right after the pandemic, the researchers
54
55 decided to utilise a web survey as it can be accessed by many individuals regardless of location,
56
57 making it easier to reach a diverse and representative sample of participants. More importantly, a web
58
59 survey can be accessed from any device with an internet connection, allowing for greater flexibility
60 and convenience for participants.
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Instrument
4
5
6 The instrument of the study was a set of questionnaires adapted from Martin et al. (2019). Using a
7
8 Google Form, the questionnaire was created with two sections: Part A: Perceptions on the readiness
9
10 of teaching online, and Part B: Demographic Information. Part A consisted of three constructs which
11 were meant to explore the respondents’ perceptions of their ability to use the technology tools (9
12
13 items), handle their courses online (5 items), and manage teaching on e-portal (10 items). Each
14
15 construct had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .86, .80 and .88, respectively, higher than the
16
17 minimum of .7, as suggested by Ponterotto and Ruckdeschel (2007). The respondents were asked to
18
19 rate their perceptions on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all familiar) to 5 (extremely familiar).
20
21
22 Data collection
23
24
25
Collecting data from the entire population is often impossible, especially when the population
26 members cannot be individually identified or contacted or the population is too large. In the current
27
28 study, the target population members could not be identified as they were scattered across Jordan.
29
30 Therefore cluster sampling was employed to gather data presumed to be representative of the target
31
32 population (Taherdoost, 2016). The researchers used Etikan and Babtope’s (2019) sample size
33
34 calculating method before data collection so that the findings could be generalised to the broader
35
36
population. Below is the formula used:
37
38 N∗𝑋
39 𝑛 = 𝑋+N−1
40
41
42 Where X = (Zα/22*P (1-P)) / MOE2
43
44
45 n= Sample size; P= Proportion of sample; MOE= Margin of error; N= Population size
46
47
48 Z-(α/2) = the critical value of the normal distribution at a α/2 (for a confidence interval level of 95%,
49
α is 0.05, and the critical value is 1.96). This entails the required level of confidence for the
50
51 estimation.
52
53
54 The link to the online questionnaire was distributed to English language instructors within English
55
56 departments in the private and public universities in Jordan through various electronic means (i.e.
57
58 emails and social media platforms including WhatsApp, Facebook, Telegram). All qualified teaching
59
60 staff within the English departments who had experience teaching online were invited to become the
61
62
research participants. The survey was conducted over two months during the academic year 2022-
63
64
65
 1
2
3 2023. All responses were anonymous and treated with confidentiality. A total of 101 Jordanian
4
5 English language educators responded to the survey.
6
7
8 Data analysis
9
10
11 The data gathered in the Google Form were exported to, coded and analysed using the IBM
12
13
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 28. Before analysis, all responses were
14 reviewed, and all data went through cleansing. There were no incomplete responses identified.
15
16 Descriptive statistical analysis involving percentages, means, and standard deviations was reported at
17
18 the item level.
19
20
21 As used by other scholars (e.g. Akaslan & Law, 2010; Tuntirojanawong, 2013; Ünal, Alır & Soydal,
22
23 2014; Los, Jaeger & Stoesz, 2021; Bolliger & Halupa, 2022), the range of mean score presented in
24
25
Table 1 was used to interpret the findings in order to determine the level of readiness among the
26 English language educators.
27
28
29 Table 1. Range of mean score used for interpreting English teachers’ readiness for online teaching
30
31 Mean Score Range Questionnaires Likert Scale Interpretation of Readiness
32
33 Not at all familiar Not at all ready
34 1.00 to ≤ 1.80
35
36
> 1.80 to ≤ 2.61 Slightly familiar Slightly ready
37
38
39 > 2.61 to ≤ 3.41 Somewhat familiar Somewhat ready
40
41
42 > 3.41 to ≤ 4.21 Moderately familiar Reasonably ready
43
44 Extremely familiar Exceptionally ready
45 > 4.21 to ≤ 5.00
46
47
48
49
50
51
4 Findings and Discussion
52
53 Demographic Profiles
54
55
56 A total of 101 teachers responded to the questionnaire in the two months of the data collection
57
58 period. Table 2 shows the summary of the respondents’ demographic profiles. The analysis showed
59
60 that 64.4% (n=65) male and 35.6% (n=36) female respondents were in this study. As for the highest
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 academic qualification, 65.3% of the respondents had a PhD (n=66), while the rest had a master's
4
5 (25.7%, n=26), a postgraduate diploma (1.1%, n=1), and a first degree (7.9%, n=8). A high
6
7 percentage of male respondents (64.4%, n=65) and PhD holders (65.3%, n= 66) reflects the status
8
9
quo that there are currently more male lecturers than female lecturers at the tertiary level in Jordan.
10
11 Their experience in teaching English was categorised into three groups: less than five years (9.9%,
12
13 n=10), 5 to 9 years (11.9%, n=12) and more than nine years (78.2%, n=79). As for the experience of
14
15 teaching online, they were grouped into three: less than five years (82.2%, n=83), 5 to 9 years
16
17 (11.7%, n=12) and more than nine years (6.1%, n=6). The analysis revealed that despite a high
18
19 percentage of having more than nine years of experience in teaching English, the majority of the
20
21 English teachers (82.2%, n=83) have less than five years of experience in teaching online, which
22 suggests that online teaching and the use of modern technology in teaching English is still at its
23
24 infancy in Jordan. As for the academic rank, the respondents were grouped into four: full professors
25
26 (7.9%), associate professors (19.8%, n=20), assistant professors (33.7%, n=34) and
27
28 instructors/lecturers (38.6%, n=39), which contributes to our understanding that academic staff
29
30 members above the rank of lecturers/instructors have started engaging in online teaching in recent
31
32
years.
33
34 Table 2: Demographic profiles of the respondents
35
36
37
38
Demographic Profiles Frequency Percent
39 Gender Male 36 35.6
40
Female 65 64.4
41
42 Highest Academic First Degree 8 7.9
43 Qualifications Postgraduate
44 1 1.0
45 Diploma
46 Master 26 25.7
47
48 PhD 66 65.3
49 Academic Rank Full Professor 8 7.9
50
51 Associate Professor 20 19.8
52 Assistant Professor 34 33.7
53
54
Instructor/Lecturer 39 38.6
55 Teaching Experience Less than 5 years 10 9.9
56 5 to 9 years 12 11.9
57
58 More than 9 79 78.2
59 Online Teaching Experience Less than 5 years 84 83.2
60
61 5 to 9 years 11 10.9
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 More than 9 years 6 5.9
4
5
6
7 English language educators’ perceptions of their readiness to use online technology
8
9
10 Table 3 shows the mean score of the respondents’ perceptions of their ability to use online
11
12 technology.
13
14
15
Table 3. Mean score of the respondents’ perceptions in using online technology
16
17 N Mean SD
18
19
Designing learning activities that provide students 101 3.9208 1.02648
20
21 opportunities for interaction (e.g., discussion forums,
22 wikis)
23
24 Creating instructional videos (e.g., lecture videos, 101 3.6931 1.05587
25
26 demonstrations, video tutorials)
27
28 Moderating discussion forums 101 3.8515 1.04294
29
30 Using email to communicate with the learners 101 4.5248 .78223
31
32 Using synchronous web-conferencing tools (e.g., 101 3.4257 1.20288
33 Adobe Connect, Webex, Blackboard Collaborate,
34
35 Skype)
36
37 Completing basic computer operations (e.g., creating 101 4.1584 .93523
38 and editing documents, managing files and folders)
39
40 Using online collaborative tools (e.g., Google Drive, 101 3.6436 1.05436
41
42
Dropbox)
43
44
Creating videos (e.g., iMovie, Movie Maker, Kaltura) 101 2.9901 1.18739
45
46 Accessing online help desk/resources for assistance 101 3.4059 1.13294
47
48
49
Using the range of mean in Table 1 for interpretation, the findings indicate that only the item of
50 ‘using email to communicate with the learners’ (4.52) was rated as extremely familiar, six items that
51
52 were rated at ‘moderately familiar’ were: i) completing basic computer operations (e.g., creating and
53
54 editing documents, managing files and folders) (4.12); ii) designing learning activities that provide
55
56 students opportunities for interaction (3.92); iii) creating instructional videos (e.g., lecture videos,
57
58 demonstrations, video tutorials) (3.70); v) moderating discussion forums (3.85); v) using
59
60
synchronous web-conferencing tools (e.g., Adobe Connect, Webex, Blackboard Collaborate, Skype)
61 (3.43); and vi) using online collaborative tools (e.g., Google Drive, Dropbox) (3.64). Two items,
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 creating videos (e.g., iMovie, Movie Maker, Kaltura) (2.99) and ‘accessing online help
4
5 desk/resources for assistance’ (3.41), were rated at ‘somewhat familiar’. The findings showed that the
6
7 respondents are sufficiently skilled in online teaching, but they have little experience in applying the
8
9
skills. Two items rated as ‘somewhat familiar’ indicated their lack of engagement with the tools that
10 are useful for online teaching. The findings contribute to our understanding that the respondents need
11
12 to be trained to use applications and web-based software for creating and editing audio-visual content
13
14 to support online teaching.
15
16
17 These findings are similar to Elewa et al. (2022), that most study subjects had only moderate
18
19 computer competency (61.1%), and only 38.9% had high competency. This ties into the
20
21 recommendation that universities provide educators with ongoing training on how to teach online
22 courses and should be provided with appropriate infrastructure (laptops, technical support, etc.).
23
24 Nenko (2020) affirms that it is necessary to find out how well teachers use modern gadgets, and
25
26 electronic communications, to understand the level of their training in the field of information and
27
28 communication technologies, the use of internet resources, and the teachers’ practical experience in
29
30 distance learning.
31
32 Educators remain the pivotal and decisive key to educational formation and transformation. Suryanti
33
34 et al. (2021) assert that educators play an essential role in the success or failure of the online learning
35
36 system. Unfortunately, educators often reported that they received limited online teacher training and
37
38
had to learn by themselves how to engage students remotely (see Nguyen et al., 2022). Thus, it
39 remains imperative that professional growth and development become a topmost priority through
40
41 continuous development, not only in their cognitive domain but also in their skills and mastery of
42
43 pedagogy (Craft, 2000).
44
45
46 English language educators’ perceptions of their readiness to manage courses online
47
48
49 As shown in Table 4, five items were categorised in the second construct, managing courses online.
50
51 They were related to the English teachers’ competencies in creating and using course orientation,
52
course objectives, instructional material, teaching methods, and copyright materials.
53
54
55 Table 4: Mean score of the respondents’ perceptions on their readiness for managing courses online.
56
57
58
59 N Mean SD
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Creating an online course orientation (e.g., introduction, 101 4.0594 .91457
5 getting started)
6
7 Writing measurable e-learning objectives 101 4.0594 1.00818
8
9 Organizing e-learning instructional materials into 101 3.8218 .98383
10
11 modules or units
12
13 Using different teaching methods in the online 101 4.0297 .92147
14 environment (e.g., brainstorming, collaborative
15
16 activities, discussions, presentations)
17
18 Applying copyright law and fair use guidelines when 101 3.4554 1.23713
19 using copyrighted materials
20
21
22
23
24 All the five dimensions of ‘course handling skills’ were rated low to high ‘moderately familiar’.
25
26 Three of them: i) creating an online course orientation (e.g., introduction, getting started); ii) writing
27 measurable e-learning objectives; and iii) using different teaching methods in the online environment
28
29 (e.g., brainstorming, collaborative activities, discussions, presentations) were rated at 4.06, 4.06 and
30
31 4.03 respectively that indicate the teachers’ had moderate familiarity in handling the course online.
32
33 Two other items: i) organising e-learning instructional materials into modules or units; and ii)
34
35 applying copyright law and fair use guidelines when using copyrighted materials were rated at
36
37 ‘moderately familiar’ with a mean score of 3.82 and 3.46, respectively.
38
39
Similar findings were reached by Suryanti et al. (2021). They measured teacher readiness in teaching
40
41 online using the T-PACK self-efficacy scale to assess teachers' confidence in their T-PACK. The
42
43 three dimensions of the T-PACK assessment (TCK, TPK, and TPCK) each obtained an average score
44
45 above 4.00. The main purpose of the study was to assess the readiness of teachers in online teaching
46
47 based on the completeness of the content of the course and their perception of readiness to teach
48
49 online. It was found that only 54% of courses were well-developed in LMS, and only 14% of courses
50 have complete content. This means that for these two categories of content completeness, it can be
51
52 said that teachers have good readiness, and the remaining 29% of teachers need more readiness to
53
54 teach online.
55
56
57 Developing educators’ professional competency and proficiency should embark on a lifelong journey
58
59 where they are expected to actively engage in their professional development by different means and
60
61 ways (Kuchah & Shamim, 2018). The constant professional upgrading educators should receive on
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 different levels over time in their professional development journey means that they are expected to
4
5 be more concerned with the principles of excellence that align with the current educational trends,
6
7 following many different approaches and strategies (Garcia, 2013).
8
9
10 English language educators’ perceptions of their readiness to use e-learning portal
11
12
13
Table 5 shows ten items constituted the final construct, ‘using e-learning portal’. They represent the
14 compulsory and optional tasks on the e-learning portal related to the student evaluation process.
15
16 Compulsory tasks include; creating online assignments (4.54), creating online quizzes and tests
17
18 (4.39), managing grades online (4.37), sending announcements/email reminders to course
19
20 participants (4.54), responding to student questions on the e-learning portal (4.43), and providing
21
22 feedback on assignments through the e-learning portal (4.30). On the other hand, optional tasks are
23
defined as the tasks that support the online teaching and learning process. Teachers are not
24
25 conditioned to perform these tasks because they are not directly involved in the student evaluation
26
27 process. Optional tasks include; using features in the e-learning management system in order to
28
29 manage time (e.g., online grading, rubrics, SpeedGrader, calendar) (3.70), navigating within the
30
31 course in the learning management system (e.g., Moodle, Canvas, Blackboard, etc.) (3.83), using
32
33 course roster in the learning management system to set up teams/groups (3.48), and sharing open
34 educational resources (e.g., learning websites, Web resources, games and simulations) on the e-
35
36 learning portal (3.66). The mean scores of compulsory tasks indicated that the respondents were
37
38 ‘extremely familiar’ with the online tasks on the e-learning portal. The mean scores of the optional
39
40 tasks remained low, indicating less engagement in these optional tasks on the e-learning portal.
41
42
43 Table 5: Mean score of the respondents’ perceptions of their readiness to use the e-learning portal.
44
45
46 N Mean SD
47
48 Creating online quizzes and tests 101 4.3861 .85989
49
50 Creating online assignments 101 4.5446 .71449
51
52 Managing grades online 101 4.3663 .86859
53
54 Sending announcements/email reminders to course 101 4.5446 .76844
55 participants
56
57 Responding to student questions on the e-learning 101 4.4257 .82881
58
59 portal
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Providing feedback on assignments through the e- 101 4.2970 .81908
4
5 learning portal
6
7 Using features in e-learning management system in 101 3.7030 1.10946
8 order to manage time (e.g., online grading, rubrics,
9
10 SpeedGrader, calendar)
11
12 Navigating within the course in the learning 101 3.8317 .98050
13 management system (e.g., Moodle, Canvas,
14
Blackboard, etc.)
15
16
17
Using course roster in the learning management system 101 3.4752 1.11887
18 to set up teams/groups
19
20 Sharing open educational resources (e.g., learning 101 3.6634 1.15998
21 websites,Web resources, games and simulations) on the
22
23 e-learning portal
24
25
26
27
28 English language educators’ readiness in teaching online
29
30
31 Using descriptive analysis, the mean score of all items in each construct was gathered and calculated
32
33 to determine the level of readiness for online teaching among English language educators. Table 5
34
35
summarises the total mean score of all three constructs. Based on Table 5, the respondents were
36 moderately familiar with online technology (3.73) and the e-learning portal (4.12). They were also
37
38 moderately familiar with managing courses online (3.89). It was assumed that their familiarity was
39
40 due to their recent engagement with online teaching during the pandemic. Having said this, the level
41
42 of understanding of the use of the e-learning portal was not as high as expected. This might have
43
44 been because the respondents did not fully utilise the portal's optional resources to facilitate the
45
46
students’ learning process.
47
48 Overall, the mean score of all constructs is 3.91. This indicates that the English language teachers
49
50 were reasonably ready for online teaching. Even so, they needed more experience using some
51
52 technology tools and should be encouraged to use them more frequently. Institutional support is
53
54 integral to educators’ readiness to adapt to challenges and changes in teaching pedagogy, as a
55
56 successful teaching process depends on multiple factors. McGee et al. (2017) found that among the
57
58
top factors supporting online teaching expertise are formal instructor training, provision of external
59 supporting mechanisms, and experience. Comprehensive training and just-in-need support are of the
60
61 most value, particularly activity directly related to realistic scenarios when teaching online. This is
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 especially true since online teaching can be stressful and time-consuming for unfamiliar instructors
4
5 (Ko & Rossen, 2017; Moser, Wei, & Brenner, 2021).
6
7
8 While the results of this study provide valuable insights into the perceived e-readiness of our
9
10 participants, they are subject to some limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small and may
11 not be representative of the broader population. Second, we relied on self-reported data, which may
12
13 be subject to social desirability bias. Finally, the study was conducted in a specific geographical
14
15 location (i.e universities in Jordan), and the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts.
16
17
18 Recommendations for Language Educators, Policymakers and Future Research
19
20
21 The findings of this study contribute to our understanding that the Jordanian English language
22
23 educators involved in this research need to be exposed to the tools available on the e-learning portal
24
25
to enhance their confidence in using the e-portal. They should also participate in different online
26 professional environments to self-assess their knowledge and efficiency of working online. Online
27
28 tutorials and workshops can provide them with additional support to enhance proficiency in online
29
30 teaching.
31
32
33 The policymakers should assess the outcomes of the policies implemented for educators’ online
34
35 professional engagement during the years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The needed action of
36
37
reconsideration, strategic change, reformulation or intensive implementation should be taken in the
38 light of sectoral as well as an overall assessment of the objectives. The alignment of the curriculum
39
40 of English language teaching with modern technology should also be assessed in light of existing
41
42 implemented policies and objectives.
43
44
45 This study focused on the English language educators’ self-assessed readiness for online teaching
46
47 that may differ from their actual preparedness for online teaching. Thus, future researchers should
48
49
further assess English educators’ competency in online education through learners’ perspectives.
50 Future research should include other constructs such as ‘time management competency’, ‘self-
51
52 confidence’ and ‘accessibility and range of online technology’ to expand the findings of this study.
53
54 Future researchers can also explore the gradual improvement of English educators’ online teaching
55
56 competency through consistent comparison analysis. Last but not least, future researchers can take up
57
58 sectoral competency mapping of English educators by using stratified random sampling techniques
59
60
such as those based on urban and rural university campuses.
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Conclusion
4
5
6 The study indicates that Jordanian English educators have a moderate level of readiness for online
7
8 teaching. However, their technology skills were rated lower than their course handling and specific e-
9
10 learning portal skills, suggesting that further training is needed to improve their confidence in using
11 technology for teaching. The findings suggest that educators must be provided with professional
12
13 development opportunities to enhance their technology, course handling, and specific e-learning
14
15 portal skills. The institutions should consider providing comprehensive training on the effective use
16
17 of online teaching tools, including how to design, deliver and manage online courses. This can be
18
19 done through workshops, seminars, and online training modules.
20
21
22 In addition, the study highlights the need for educators to engage in continuous professional
23
development to keep up with the latest trends in online teaching. This can be done by encouraging
24
25 educators to participate in online communities and attending conferences and webinars on online
26
27 teaching. Finally, the study indicates that online education is still in its infancy in Jordanian
28
29 universities, and the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of online teaching. The
30
31 institutions should embrace the shift to online teaching and invest in the necessary resources to
32
33 support it. This includes providing educators with the required technology and infrastructure, such as
34 reliable internet connections and access to e-learning portals.
35
36
37
38
39
40 4 References
41
42
Ahmad Ghulamuddin, N. J., Tengku Sharif, T. I. S., and Abd Rahman, Z. (2022). Stem students’
43
44 English language learning strategies and underlying factors about open distance
45
46 learning. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(2), 81-102.
47
48
49 Akaslan, D., and Law, E.L.-C. (2010). Measuring teachers’ readiness for e-learning in higher
50
51 education institutions associated with electricity in Turkey. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE
52
53 Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)-Learning Environments and
54
55
Ecosystems in Engineering Education, pp. 481--490. Amman, Jordan.
56
57 Alger, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2022). “I took physical lessons for granted”: A case study exploring
58
59 students’ interpersonal interactions in online synchronous lessons during the outbreak of
60
61 COVID-19. System, 105, 102716.
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Ali, Z. (2022). 21st-century learning: Understanding the language learning strategies with technology
4
5 literacy among l2 learners. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(2), 202-220.
6
7
8 Allen, J., Rowan, and L., and Singh, P.(2020). Teaching and teacher education in the time of
9 COVID-19,Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 233-
10
11 236.https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2020.1752051
12
13 Almahasees, Z., and Jaccomard, H. (2020). Facebook translation service (FTS) usage among
14 jordanians during COVID-19 lockdown. Advances in Science, Technology, Engineering
15
16 Systems Journal, 5(6), 514-519.
17
18 Al Muheisen, R. (2022) “Jordan ‘left behind’ on Global Knowledge Index 2021”. The Jordan Times.
19 https://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-%E2%80%98left-behind%E2%80%99-
20
21 global-knowledge-index-2021 (last accessed February 6, 2023)
22
23 Back, M., Golembeski, K., Gutiérrez, A., Macko, T., Miller, S., & Pelletier, D. L. (2021). “We were
24 told that the content we delivered was not as important:” disconnect and disparities in world
25
26 language student teaching during COVID-19. System, 103, 102679.
27
28 Bawane, J., and Spector, J.M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: implications for
29
30
competency‐ based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30, 383 - 397.
31
32 Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New
33
34 York: David McKay Co Inc.
35
36
37
Bolliger, Doris U, and Colleen Halupa. (2022). “An Investigation of Instructors' Online Teaching
38 Readiness”. TechTrends: For leaders in education & training vol. 66,2 (2022): 185-195.
39 doi:10.1007/s11528-021-00654-0
40
41
42 Caprara, L., and Caprara, C. (2021). Effects of virtual learning environments: A scoping review of
43 literature. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 3683-3722.
44
45 Cheng, G., and Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online
46
47 participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended
48 learning course. British journal of educational technology, 47(2), 257-278.
49
50 Coombe, C. and Khan, R. (2017). Best Practices in ELT: Voices from the classroom. Dubai: Tesol
51
52 Arabia.
53
54 Craft, A.(2000). Continuing Professional development: A practical guide for teachers and Schools.
55
London, UK: Rouledge Falmer.
56
57
58 Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching:
59 Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Teacher Education, 43(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1815702 [Taylor
4
& Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
5
6
7 Elewa, A. H. (2022). Online teaching readiness, challenges and satisfaction as perceived by nursing faculty
8 members during COVID-19 pandemics. International Egyptian Journal of Nursing Sciences and
9 Research, 2(2), 568-579.
10
11 Etikan, I., & Babtope, O. (2019). A basic approach in sampling methodology and sample size
12
13
calculation. Med Life Clin, 1(2), 1006.
14
15 Farrell, T.S.C. (2016). TESOL., a profession that eats its young: the importance of reflective practice
16 in language teacher education. Iran.J.Lang.Teach.Res. 4(3),97-107.
17
18
19
Gabriella, F-B., Esther,F, Kaye, T. (2023) Reimagining teacher identity in the post-Covid-19
20 university: becoming digitally savvy, reflective in practice, collaborative, and relational.
21 Educational and Developmental Psychologist 40:1, pages 18-26.
22
23
24 Garcia, R,E. (2013).English as international language: A review of the literature. Colombian Applied
25 Linguistic Journal,15(1), 113-127.
26
27 Gay, G.H.E. (2016). An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during, and after
28
29 course delivery. Journal of Computing in Higher Education.
30
31 Goutam ,R., Rasel, B., Md. A., Nowreen, Y., Tata, Z.& Samir, R. (2023) Response, readiness and
32 challenges of online teaching amid COVID-19 pandemic: the case of higher education in
33
34 Bangladesh. Educational and Developmental Psychologist 40:1, pages 40-50.
35
36 Guan K. S., Chi-Ning, Ch., & Shengjie, L. (2022) Gender disparities in remote teaching readiness and
37
38 mental health problems among university faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
39 Educational and Developmental Psychologist 40:1, pages 131-140
40
41 Hosny S, Ghaly M, Hmoud AlSheikh M, Shehata MH, Salem AH, Atwa H. Developing, Validating, and
42
43 Implementing a Tool for Measuring the Readiness of Medical Teachers for Online Teaching
44 Post-COVID-19: A Multicenter Study. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021 Jul 13;12:755-768. doi:
45
46 10.2147/AMEP.S317029. PMID: 34285628; PMCID: PMC8286080.
47
48 König, J. et al. (2020). "Adapting To Online Teaching During COVID-19 School Closure: Teacher
49
50 Education And Teacher Competence Effects Among Early Career Teachers In
51 Germany". European Journal Of Teacher Education, vol 43, no. 4, 2020, pp. 608-
52 622. Informa UK Limited.
53
54
55 Kuchah, K and Shamim, F.(2018). International perspectives on teaching English in difficult
56 circumstances: Contexts, Challenges and possibilities. London: Palgrave Micllan.
57
58 Los, R., De Jaeger, A., and Stoesz, B.M. (2021). Online and blended teaching readiness assessment
59
60 (OBTRA). Frontiers in Education 6, 673594.
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 MacIntyre,P.D.,Gregersen, T., and Mercer,S. (2020). Language teachers’ coping strategise during the
4
Covid-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress, wellbeing and negative
5
6 emotions.System, 94, 102352.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102352.
7
8 Martin, F., Budhrani, K., and Wang, C. (2019). Examining faculty perception of their readiness to
9
10
teach online. Online Learning, 23(3), 97-119.
11
12 McGee, P., Windes, D. and Torres, M. (2017). Experienced online instructors: beliefs and preferred
13 supports regarding online teaching. J Comput High Educ 29, 331–352 (2017).
14
15
16
Moser, K. M., Wei, T., & Brenner, D. (2021). Remote teaching during COVID-19: Implications from
17 a national survey of language educators. System, 97, 102431.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Nayak, M. S. D. P., & Narayan, K. A. (2019). Strengths and weaknesses of online surveys.
25 Technology, 6(7), 0837-2405053138.
26
27 Nenko, Y. (2020). Teachers’ Readiness for Distance Education: From Theory to Practice. The Impact Of
28
COVID19 On The International Education System, 150-61.
29
30
31 Nguyen, N. H., Tran, T. L. N., Nguyen, L. T., Nguyen, T. A., & Nguyen, M. T. (2022). The
32 interaction patterns of pandemic-initiated online teaching: How teachers
33
34
adapted. System, 105, 102755.
35
36 O’Dowd, R., and Dooly, M. (2022). Exploring teachers’ professional development through
37 participation in virtual exchange. ReCALL, 34(1), 21-36. doi:10.1017/S0958344021000215
38
39 Pagliari, L., Batts, D., and McFadden, C. C. (2009). Desired versus actual training for online
40
41 instructors in community colleges.
42
43 Payant, C., & Zuniga, M. (2022). Learners' flow experience during peer revision in a virtual writing
44
45
course during the global pandemic. System, 105, 102715.
46
47 Phan, Thanh-Thao Thi and Ly Thi Thao Dang. (2017) Teacher Readiness for Online Teaching: A
48 Critical Review
49
50
51
Polat, E., Hopcan, S., and Yahsi, O. (2022) Are K-12 teachers ready for e-learning? International
52 Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 23:2.
53
54 Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability
55
56 matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with psychological
57 research measures. Perceptual and motor skills, 105(3), 997-1014.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Rohayani, H. & Kurniabudi, K. and Buhairah, S. (2015). A Literature Review: Readiness Factors to
4
Measuring e-Learning Readiness in Higher Education. Procedia Computer Science. 59.
5
6 10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.564.
7
8 Ruiz-Alonso-Bartol, A., Querrien, D., Dykstra, S., Fernández-Mira, P., & Sanchez-Gutierrez, C.
9
10
(2022). Transitioning to emergency online teaching: The experience of Spanish language
11 learners in a US university. System, 104, 102684.
12
13 Sarah K. H., Jo, T., Fazilat, S. and Ronny, S. (2021). Ready, set, go! Profiling teachers’ readiness for
14
15 online teaching in secondary education, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30:1, 141-158.
16
17 Sarfaz, M., Hussain, G., Shahid, M., Riaz, A., Muavia, M., Fahed, Y. S., Azam, F., and Abdullah, M.
18 T. (2022). Medical students’ online learning perceptions, online learning readiness, and
19
20 learning outcomes during COVID 19: The moderating role of teacher’s readiness to teach
21 online. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3520.
22
23 Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., and Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for
24
25 online teaching and learning in higher education: Who’s ready? Computers in human
26 behavior, 118. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675.
27
28
29
Stec, M., Smith, C., and Jacox, E. (2020). Technology enhanced teaching and learning: Exploration
30 of faculty adaptation to iPad delivered curriculum. Technology, Knowledge and Learning,
31 25(3), 651-665.
32
33 Suryanti, S., Sutaji, D., & Nusantara, T. (2021, June). An Assessment of Teachers’ Readiness for Online
34
35 Teaching. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1933, No. 1, p. 012117). IOP Publishing.
36
37
38 Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling
39
40
technique for research. How to choose a sampling technique for research (April 10, 2016).
41
42 Tuntirojanawong, S. (2013). Students’ readiness for e-learning: A case study of sukhothai
43
44 thammathirat open university, Thailand. Journal of Learning in Higher Education 9(1), 59-
45
46 66.
47
48
49 Unal, Y., Alir, and G., Soydal, I. (2014). Students readiness for e-learning: An assessment on
50
51 Hacettepe university department of information management. In J. N. Gathegi, Y. Tonta, S.
52
53 kurbanoglu, & Z. Taskin (eds.), Challenges of Information Management Beyond the Cloud
54 (pp. 137-147).
55
56
57 Wary, M., Lowenthal, P.R., Bates, B., and Stevens, E. (2008). Investigating perceptions of teaching
58
59 online & f2f. Academic Exchange Quarterly,12(4),243-248.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Wendy W. P, Charles R. G, Robert G. Bo, & Daniel S.S. (2016). A qualitative analysis of
4
institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education, The
5
6 Internet and Higher Education, 28: 17-27.
7
8 Zeybek, G. (2022). Investigate pre-service teachers’ readiness levels for online learning and
9
10
engagement levels in the online environment. Journal of Learning for Development, 9(2),
11 190–208.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Figure Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 1- Readiness.png
Declaration of Interest Statement

Declaration of interests

☒The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:
Supplementary Material

Click here to access/download

Supplementary Material
QUESTIONNAIRE-Are You Ready to Teach Online.pdf